Whew!

Just like American voters realized what was at stake in the 2022 elections for the Senate, the House, and the State offices (let’s hear it for voter sanity), the voters in California also recognized the folly that the SEIU_UHW (Service Employees International Union- United Healthcare Workers West) was trying to impose on dialysis providers.   For the third time in 5 years, the voters rejected the proposition proffered by the union to pressure Fresenius and DaVita to negotiate with the unions by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

(By the way, I am NOT saying that these two behemoths shouldn’t consider unionization.  The issue is that I [which doesn’t mean I am just too far away to see it] haven’t seen where a union vote at a clinic has succeeded.)

The final vote (at least as of now- there are way too many uncounted California votes, which is why we don’t have the final seat tally for House Republicans and Democrats) is 4 907 535 to deny the proposition (69.6%) and 2 142 464 agreeing with the proposition (30.3%).

To reiterate, Proposition 29 would have required dialysis centers in California (~600 free-standing units, treating some 80000 patients, ¾ of which are treated by the big two dialysis providers mentioned above) to:

• Maintain an on-site licensed medical professional (nephrologist, physician assistant, nurse practitioner- with at least 1 year of dialysis experience) to supervise all therapy.
• Notify the California Department of Public Health of any infections within the facility
• Prohibit closing or altering (substantially) services at a clinic without obtaining state approval in writing before doing so.
• Accept all patients to a facility for treatment regardless of the source of payment.

As I have previously reported, there is no indication that dialysis patients have better outcomes should there be a licensed medical professional perpetually on site.  The  data across the US (and compared to California) makes this manifest.  (Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah all mandate staff to dialysis patient ratios]- and their dialysis services are not  superior to those provided within the state of California).

Patient infections are already required to be reported to Federal Authorities, so it’s not like any center is trying to hide poor performance.

Most of the newspaper editorials (I would say all, but I might have missed an editorial agreeing with the SEIU proposal) were against the proposition; likewise for TV networks.  And, a great deal of money was spent to fight this proposition.  70 groups appeared to block the passage, spending a total of $ 86.4 million.  However, we should note that DaVita spent $52.7 million and Fresenius coughed up $ 27.3 million- which means the other 68 groups spent some $ 6.4 million in total.  (Yes, the two targeted firms covered 93% of the lobbying bucks.)  SEIU-UHW (via its PAC [political action committee] Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection) spent more than $ 7.9 million.

Maybe it’s time to prohibit the SEIU-UHW from bringing this notion up every two years, unless and until it can prove that dialysis service quality has dropped.

This sort of chicanery needs to end.

Don’t forget.  There’s a web based event introducing  the newly published book,  One Bold Move a Day, tonight.  Find out how you can meet your objectives and have a great time doing so!

Share this: